[Pops]

The G7 leading industrial nations have agreed on tough measures to cut greenhouse gases by phasing out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has announced, in a move hailed as historic by some environmental campaigners.

Analysis G7 fossil fuel pledge is a diplomatic coup for Germany's 'climate chancellor'
Karl Mathiesen: Persuading climate recalcitrants such as Japan and Canada to sign up for phasing out fossil fuels by 2100 is a significant achievement by Angela Merkel
Read more
On the final day of talks in a Bavarian castle, Merkel said the leaders had committed themselves to the need to “decarbonise the global economy in the course of this century”. They also agreed on a global target for limiting the rise in average global temperatures to a maximum of 2C compared to pre-industrial levels.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... of-century

Put this in the PO forum because (this is a PO board) but because the question seems to me to be more one of "could we not "de-carbonize" even if we wanted?"

[Plantagenet]

Its easy for politicians to make a nice sounding promise that doesn't have to be carried out for 85 years.

Menawhile, global carbon emissions continue to go up each year. None of these "voluntary" agreements to decarbonize decades in the future have had the slightest effect on reducing global FF use and global carbon emissions


No worries, mate. Obama and the Group of 7 double pinky promise the world will be carbon free 85 years from now.

[Newfie]

"Decarbonize" would seem to mean removing the excess carbon we have dumped in, not reducing what we are dumping in.

Spin.

[Graeme]

Yes, Plant is right. Their pledge is not fast enough. This will lead to a complete disaster. Plant, Are you already cooking in Alaska?

Rich Countries Fail to Agree to Rapid Decline of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Some of the world’s richest countries are not doing enough to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, according to new analysis.

The report by Climate Action Tracker (CAT) says that all the G7 countries and the member states of the European Union (EU) have so far agreed to keep their emissions at around their present levels for the next 15 years, instead of cutting them fast.

The combined climate plans for the G7 and the EU mark “a small step towards the right track to hold warming to two degrees Celsius, but they still leave a substantial emissions gap,” according to analysts from CAT, which reports on countries’ emissions commitments and performance.

The gap yawns so wide that the present level of commitment shown by the two blocs would go less than one-third of the way to staying within the two degrees Celsius limit, they find.

Extreme risk

And they say there is “an extreme risk” that this low level of ambition could continue until 2030 to keep emissions so high that it would be impossible to stay within the two degrees Celsius warming limit, agreed by the world’s governments.

ecowatch

[SeaGypsy]

In 2100 most of whatever population is left won't have heard of any of these leaders & if there's a G7 it will likely have quite different membership able to vote whatever they feel nice about saying they want the world to be like in 2185.

[Apneaman]

They made no commitment. They simply agreed that it needs to be done. Lawyer lingo tricks. Same shit, same empty promises we have been hearing since 1992 Kyoto. No nation will ever voluntarily stop burning carbon for energy. Ape yeast don't do sugar free. The politicians will keep making agreements that will never be met and the techno utopians will keep claiming "just around the corner" and the deniers will keep denying and the Doomers will doom. CO2, methane, ocean acidification and the rest of the great die off will continue along, simply following the laws of physics, chemistry and biology- neither caring or not caring.

"the leaders had committed themselves to the need to “decarbonise the global economy in the course of this century”. "

[Apneaman]

We’re all climate change deniers at heart

"We’ve evolved to respond more vigorously to threats that are immediate and easy to picture mentally, rather than those that are distant and abstract; we’re more sensitive to intentional threats from specific humans, rather than unintentional ones resulting from collective action; we’re terrible at making small sacrifices in the present to avoid vast ones in future; our attention is seized by phenomena that change daily, rather than those that ratchet up gradually over years."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ssil-fuels

[Newfie]

Agreed. It's what we are.

[ROCKMAN]

And once again current politicians attempt to dictate policies of future politicians many of which haven’t even been born yet. Current politicians who will all be dead in a couple of decades. How fitting such a potential treaty is about 100 years since another global treaty based upon common sense necessity. Maybe this new one will fair better then the old one that didn’t even last 20 years:

Signed on June 28th 1919 as an end to the First World War, The Treaty of Versailles was supposed to ensure a lasting peace by punishing Germany and setting up a League of Nations to solve diplomatic problems. Instead it left a legacy of political and geographical difficulties which have often been blamed, sometime solely, for starting the Second World War.

[Lore]

Climate change requires a long term sustained effort. Not a quick shot in the arm. Unless we can make an enforce agreements that carry forward for generations we have no chance of overcoming the challenge.

Just concentrating on the three leading producers of excess CO2, China, USA and the EU would change the equation.

[onlooker]

They made no commitment. They simply agreed that it needs to be done. Lawyer lingo tricks. Same shit, same empty promises we have been hearing since 1992 Kyoto. No nation will ever voluntarily stop burning carbon for energy. Ape yeast don't do sugar free. The politicians will keep making agreements that will never be met and the techno utopians will keep claiming "just around the corner" and the deniers will keep denying and the Doomers will doom. CO2, methane, ocean acidification and the rest of the great die off will continue along, simply following the laws of physics, chemistry and biology- neither caring or not caring.

"the leaders had committed themselves to the need to “decarbonise the global economy in the course of this century”. "

You hit it on the nail Ap, so much talk so little action. I am now so amused by the gibberish that comes out from the authorities. As far as I am concerned we all our now awaiting a "miracle" or the laws you mentioned to take effect and wipe out most of life on Earth including the "smart" primates US.

[Graeme]

G7 climate vision requires gargantuan economic shift

When leaders of the Group of Seven wealthy countries pledge to "decarbonize" the global economy, they're talking about a shift so dramatic that one analyst described it as a new Apollo mission.

Like putting a man on the moon, it would require overcoming major hurdles related to technology and money and the political will — so far in short supply — to make it happen.

Despite gains by renewable energy sources in recent years, the world is still hooked on fossil fuels that are powering our homes and businesses and fueling our cars, trucks, airplanes and ships.

The resulting release of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere keeps rising, primarily because of fast growth in China, India and other emerging economies. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels now exceed 30 billion tons a year, according to the International Energy Agency.

What President Barack Obama and other G-7 leaders envisioned in Germany on Monday is a world where those emissions would be phased out by the end of the century.

Above all that would entail a major shift in how the world produces electricity, about two-thirds of which comes from the burning of fossil fuels, mainly coal and gas.

Scaling up solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, hydro-power and perhaps other renewable sources still to be developed is possible, but that requires policies, such as carbon taxes, that make them more competitive compared to coal or natural gas.

"We have to be honest: coal is a very, very cheap energy carrier. Therefore we need a carbon price," said Ottmar Edenhofer, a prominent member of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate science.

Putting a price on carbon is highly contentious politically in many countries. The U.S. Senate turned down such a proposal in 2010. Australia's current government repealed a carbon tax introduced by the previous government.

Making renewables that depend on the weather such as wind and solar power more competitive would also require technological advances, primarily how to store energy more efficiently.

Decarbonizing the transportation sector is even more complicated. There are of course already vehicles running on electricity or biofuels. But fuels made from oil still dominate and it will probably be a long time before they can be substituted at a large scale in aviation and shipping, though experiments with biofuels and even solar power are underway.

Also, replacing fossil fuels to generate the intense heat required for some industrial processes like steel production isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

That's why many scientists and economists say demands by some environmental activists for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels are unrealistic. Instead, they say the fight against climate change will have to include efforts to capture CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and bury them deep underground where they don't affect the climate.

stamfordadvocate

[americandream]

The systems structures preclude its mitigation.

[Newfie]

Yes, and we are part of the system. Pretty hard to not be.

[Outcast_Searcher]

No worries, mate. Obama and the Group of 7 double pinky promise the world will be carbon free 85 years from now.

They left out the frog that's saying, "It's not getting hotter. It's getting colder! My powers of observation and intuition tell me so!"

Even if this actually MEANT sustained serious action, it would occur almost 100 years too late. As it is, politicians love to make false promises about the far future. So many votes for absolutely NOTHING (the perfect trade-off, to a politician).

[ennui2]

Plant said he was "enjoying" climate change a couple months back up in Alaska. Not sure why he's busy bashing Obama about it. If it's personally more comfortable for him in Alaska, then there's no problem, right?

[GregT]

Plant said he was "enjoying" climate change a couple months back up in Alaska. Not sure why he's busy bashing Obama about it.

I've come to the conclusion that planter is actually an Obama insider, constantly attempting to try and fool everyone into believing that Obama is more important then he really is. Sort of a reverse psychology trick, in a sick and demented kind of way.

[Plantagenet]

Plant said he was "enjoying" climate change a couple months back up in Alaska.

Yes I joked that after a long cold winter in Alaska its nice to have some record warm sunny spring days.

Not sure why he's busy bashing Obama about it.

I've explained this to you before, but lets try again. Now sit up straight and pay attention, ennui2.

Obama bears a good share of the responsibility for the collapse of the post-Koto UN treaty process that was track to produce a binding UN climate treaty to reduce CO2 until the trainwreck in Copenhagen in 2009. A personal tiff started between obama and the Chinese leader after Obama forced his way into a meeting China called for "third world" countries, and took over the podium from the Chinese leader. Chinese people put a lot of weight on being respectful and polite, and the Chinese leader was insulted by Obama taking over his meeting.

Obama tried to patch things up by inviting the Chinese leader to a private meeting, but the Chinese sent a very low level delegate to meet with Obama to insult him back, and things went downhill from there.

The treaty that had been drafted in a series of meetings over decades that the world's leaders had come to Copenhagen to sign was abandoned. Obama switched from the idea of a legal enforcecable treaty with binding rules to reduce CO2 emissions to voluntary non-binding agreements to keep global warming under 2°C. Sientists thinks Obama's changes are harmful and that voluntary agreements won't succeed in reducing global CO2 emissions.

There aren't many individuals who can be blamed for the collapse of decades long UN treaty negotiations to reduce CO2 emissions, but the collapse of the UN post-Kyoto treaty processs is now part of Obama's legacy. IMHO, this was a big deal-----Copenhagen was the last best chance to stop global warming.

WaPo: collapse of the UN post-Kyoto treaty processs in Copenhagen 2009

If it's personally more comfortable for him in Alaska, then there's no problem, right?

A nice sunny day is a nice sunny day---if it grips you up that I like sunny days then its just another sign of how wonderfully weird and wacky you are. Do you scurry inside to avoid the sun when you get a warm day there in Massachusetts?

And as far as global warming goes, of course it is a huge problem. Don't you get that yet?

Cheers!

[Dybbuk]

Seems to me that fossil fuel use probably will end (for the most part) by 2100. Because one of two things will happen between now and then. Either 1) alternative/new energy sources (thorium as well as solar/wind/geo) get scaled up enough to replace fossil fuels, or 2) a collapse scenario occurs, and we aren't able to maintain the technology and infrastructure needed to keep digging up the deeply-buried remaining fossil fuels.

[jedrider]

The Day the Earth Stood Still

That will be the day/year when we Decarbonize

Extra-terrestrials, where the hell are you when we need you?